URVASHI AGNIHOTRI, MEMBER:
1. Haryana Urban Development Authority, Sector 12, Faridabad OP is in appeal against the Order dated 21.03.2016 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short District Forum), Faridabad, whereby the complaint of Mrs. Madhu Gupta - Complainant has been allowed with the following directions:- OP is directed to charge extension fee of the plot in question from the complainant after two years from 17.12.2009 and to grant her rebate, being woman, in accordance with the circular issued vide memo No. A-1 (P)-2007/3265-86 dated 29.01.2007 as well as to pay Rs.2200/- on account of mental tension besides harassment in addition to Rs.1100/- towards litigation expenses, holding the OP liable for their deficiency in service.
2. In brief, according to the complainant, she was allotted a plot bearing No.1144, Sector -46, Faridabad vide letter No.396 dated 17.01.1991 and its possession was given to her by OP vide letter No.1498 dated 13.07.1994 effective from 21.05.1994. But the OP citing reason of this plot under litigation, offered alternative plot to the complainant vide letter No.546, dated 27.05.1998. The complainant gave her consent vide letters dated 12.06.1998 and 04.07.1998 and the Draw of said plot was held on 12.08.1998. The complainant was allotted plot No.188G, Sector- 46 but the complainant did not receive any allotment letter. She requested OP to issue allotment letter through Regd. letters, but did not receive any reply to that and instead she the received a show cause notice dated 29.07.2002, under Section 17(3) of HUDA Act, 1997. HUDA demanded from the complainant an amount of Rs.6000/- towards non- construction and no payment of extension fees, to which the complainant replied on 23.08.2002 that said charges could not be levied as allotment letter of alternative plot as well as possession thereof was not given to her. OP reiterated their demand vide letter dated 28.08.2002 without mentioning anything about the allotment letter of alternative plot. Further, the OP issued show cause notice demanding extension fee of Rs.33,000/- and did not issue the allotment letter. Aggrieved against the same, the complainant approached the District Forum for the redressal of her grievances against the OP.
3. Justifying their action, the OP pleaded that the complainant never came forward to take the physical possession of the said plot and thereafter in the year 1995 ban was imposed on construction in five kilometer area from Surajkund to Badkhal and the plot No.1144 Sector 46 fell in the radius of 5 kilometers. Therefore, the OP declined to put allottees into draw of plots, and the complainant was asked to give her consent for the allotment of an alternative plot. OP denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint with costs. However, the learned District Forum, agreeing with the complainant allowed the complaint on 21.03.2016 by granting him the aforesaid relief.
4. Against the impugned order dated 21.03.2016, the OP / appellant have filed appeal before us reiterating their pleas as raised before the District Forum. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. It is evident from the record that the main grievance of the complainant is regarding the demand of the OP about payment of extension and composition fee etc. Infact when the complainant agreed for the allotment of an alternative plot, it was imperative on her part to pay the requisite extension fee in time. But by the non paying of this extension she not only became a defaulter, but also lost the status of a Consumer for the purpose of the Consumer Protection Act. The law on the subject stands settled by the Honble National Commission, as upheld by the Honble Supreme Court in number of cases. One such case is HUDA Vs. Sunita (SC) 2005(2)SCC479, in which it was laid down that on the above finding, the National Commission had no jurisdiction to go into the correctness of the demand of composition fee and extension fee made by HUDA from the respondent complainant. Therefore, the complainant was not a Consumer within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act.
5. Consequently, the appeal filed by the OP is allowed and the order of the learned District Forum is set aside and the Complaint stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
6. The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellants against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules. December 12 ,th 2016 Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench R.K.
Comments